Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Regulations

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Sec Regulation

sec_regulation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full text of one SEC regulation — a US securities regulation codified in 17 CFR (SEC and CFTC) — by its citation or common rule name. Returns the exact regulatory wording currently in force. Answers "what does SEC Rule 10b-5 require", "what is the SEC regulation for X", "read 17 CFR 240.10b-5", "what does Regulation S-K item 303 say", "the SEC disclosure requirement for X". Forgiving input: "240.10b-5", "17 CFR 240.10b-5", "§ 229.303", "230.506(b)" (paragraph stripped to the section), "240.15l-1", "part 240". Common rule names resolve automatically: "Rule 10b-5" -> 240.10b-5, "Rule 10b5-1", "Rule 144", "Rule 506", "Rule 15c3-1" (net capital), "Regulation S-K" -> part 229, "Regulation S-X" -> part 210, "Reg FD" -> 243.100, "Reg NMS" -> part 242, "Reg SHO", "Reg D", "Reg A", "Reg S", "Regulation BI" -> 240.15l-1, "Form ADV" / Investment Advisers Act rules -> part 275, "Rule 206(4)-7". Covers securities regulation across all of Title 17: registration and offerings, disclosure requirements, insider trading, proxy rules, broker-dealer obligations, investment advisers, market structure, and CFTC commodity and derivatives regulation. Pass a whole part (e.g. "229" or "part 240") to get that part's section list. Example: sec_regulation({ citation: "240.10b-5" }) -> employment of manipulative and deceptive devices; sec_regulation({ citation: "Rule 10b-5" }) -> same section via the rule name. Keyless. This pack is the SEC RULES text; the separate edgar and sec-xbrl packs serve SEC filings data (company filings, XBRL financials).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citationYesSecurities-regulation citation or rule name. A section: "240.10b-5", "17 CFR 240.10b-5", "§ 229.303", "230.506(b)", "275.206(4)-7". A rule name: "Rule 10b-5", "Rule 144", "Regulation S-K", "Reg FD", "Regulation BI". Or a whole part: "229", "part 240" -> returns the part's section list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "citation": "240.10b-5"
+  },
+  {
+    "citation": "Rule 10b-5"
+  },
+  {
+    "citation": "Regulation S-K"
+  },
+  {
+    "citation": "part 240"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope (all of Title 17), input flexibility, and coverage areas, but does not detail response format or potential length constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured, with a clear lead sentence and logical grouping of examples and coverage. Slightly long but every sentence adds value; could benefit from bullet points for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers input, scope, and disambiguation from related tools. Lacks output format details (plain text vs JSON), but given the tool's simple purpose, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds extensive value with numerous examples, common rule name mappings, and input format variations, greatly aiding correct parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full text of an SEC regulation by citation or common name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sec_regulations_search (search) and edgar/sec-xbrl packs (filings data), making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use (get exact regulatory wording) and provides forgiving input formats. It also mentions alternative tools for filings data, giving clear context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sec Regulations toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both scan for betting opportunities, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but an agent must read carefully to distinguish the meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) from each other.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first or domain-prefixed noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, sec_regulations_search, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, and sec_regulation vs sec_regulations_search is slightly inconsistent, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', and most are unrelated to the server's stated name 'Sec Regulations'—only sec_regulation and sec_regulations_search fit that label. While each tool has a defined purpose, the set feels like several distinct servers (research, betting, memory, subscriptions) crammed into one.

Completeness3/5

For a general data-research platform, the surface is broad: Q&A routers, entity resolution/profiles, comparisons, validation, memory, subscriptions, and domain-specific tools. But the SEC-regulation focus implied by the server name is severely under-served, and there's no direct tool to fetch a raw document by citation/URI outside of the ask_pipeworx router. The Polymarket cluster is over-built relative to other data domains.

Resources